Aiming for the stars? A public transport system for all

Camilleri, Joseph M. (2000): 'Aiming for the stars? A public transport system for all', a presentation. National Conference on Public Transport, organised by the Public Transport Authority, Malta and held on Monday, 13th March, 2000 at the Corinthia Palace Hotel, San Anton. MALTA.

Let me begin by paraphrasing a statement made in 1964 by the American black leader,
Malcolm X:

"Sitting at the table doesn't make you a diner. You must be eating some of what's on that plate. Being here in [Malta] doesn't make you [a Maltese]. Being born here in [Malta] doesn't make you [a Maltese]" (Malcolm X, 1964)

So, thank you, for inviting disabled people to 'dine' with you. Thank you for inviting the previously voiceless and invisible citizens of these islands to this conference, not as passive observers, but as very active participants.

Disability is imposed

The majority of people still tend to associate disability with a medical condition: we are seen as 'sick', 'broken' or 'abnormal' human beings. Many people still see us as tragic cases, worthy of 'pity' and 'charity'. Many still focus on our lack of ability, instead of seeing the potential that we may achieve if we are provided with the right preparation, support and the necessary tools.

Over the last thirty years, disabled persons around the world have rejected this image as being false, demeaning and dehumanising. True, our biological impairments impose limitations upon us, but which of you today, can honestly say that their own lives are lived without limitations?

"In our view, it is society which disables [...] impaired people. Disability is something imposed on top of our impairment by the way we are unnecessarily isolated and excluded from full participation in society. Disabled people are therefore an oppressed group in society.

Thus we define impairment as lacking part or all of a limb, organ or mechanism of the body; and disability as the disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by a contemporary social organisation which takes no or little account of people who have [...] impairments and thus excludes them from participation in the mainstream of social activities." (UPIAS, 1976: p. 14).

Our struggle as disabled people then is not so much to seek cures and play at charades by pretending to be 'as normal as possible', but to be proud and unapologetic about our differences and to insist that these differences are taken into account by contemporary social organisations which have hitherto taken no or little account of us.

An enabling, not disabling, public transport system

Public transport is one such 'contemporary social organisation'. By public transport I mean buses, taxis, minivans and other systems which come under the responsibility of the Public Transport Authority.

That the Maltese public transport system is failing to provide a service to so many people who have mobility and other impairments is both tragic and unacceptable. For in an ideal world, public transport is a major part of a chain of services which enable, rather than disable people. Public transport provides people with the opportunity to pursue an education, hold down a job, socialise.

In short, public transport enables people to be a real, not a nominal part of society. To carry the argument further, an accessible public transport system is a central tool in the creation of a truly inclusive society where no one is excluded on the basis of creed, colour, gender or ability. A vision of ourselves to which, I believe, we all subscribe.

If we do indeed believe an inclusive society, then the antiquated mentality of providing separate services for 'special' (for which read 'abnormal') people no longer remains an acceptable option. On a practical plane, we have no option but to reject so-called 'accessible options', based on obsolete technology. Whereas on the plane of principles we cannot, and will not, endorse a 'separate but equal' policy which history has taught us is the rhetoric used to justify segregated and usually inferior services for a particular minority in society, thus singling them out as 'different' and 'other'.

Segregated services stigmatise their users, there is no gentler way of putting it. Thus, a segregated (or specialised) service should only be considered for the absolute minority of people who require a degree of support which is so great that any form of public transport, no matter how user friendly, is inadequate.

And let us not fool ourselves into imagining that it is only disabled people who have problems with the present public transport arrangements. At this moment, besides excluding most disabled people, our public transport system does not cater adequately for elderly people, expectant mothers, parents with young children, and most individuals who carry bulky loads such as shopping bags. Given that elderly people and females are the main users of public transport, we should not be surprised that the numbers of people making use of these services has been steadily declining over the years.

In favour of accessible transport systems

Very briefly, let us look at a number of arguments in favour of an accessible public transport system.

From a policy and legal point of view there are two most compelling arguments in favour of a public transport system: the requirements of the 1990 Structure Plan and the enactment of the Equal Opportunities (Persons with Disability) Act (EOA).

Firstly, the 1990 Structure Plan, categorically states that:

'[the] Public Transport Authority will ensure that new buses purchased … are easily accessible to elderly persons, children and persons with disability, including wheelchair users.' (Structure Plan, 1992: p.80).

Secondly, we have our own Equal Opportunities Act which is based on similar anti-discrimination legislation adopted by other developed (dare we say 'civilised'?) societies, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act. Besides generally outlawing any form of discrimination based on an individual's disability, the EOA goes on to require: "the reasonable removal of architectural, communication or transport barriers;" (EOA, 2000: Pt. I, 2(ii)). Furthermore, the EOA does not equivocate where the removal of barriers is concerned but advocates negotiated --- or reasonable --- timescales. Therefore, legally it is not a question of 'whether or not', but a question of 'when' ... barriers are to be removed.

But, let me forestall any accusations of unreasonable fanaticism because I seem to be aiming for the stars by fixing my sights on the seemingly impossible. In the United States, for example, the Greyhound Company was sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act for providing transport which was not accessible to persons with mobility and other limitations. Rather than attempting to defend the indefensible, Greyhound wisely decided to come to a settlement on how they will be ensuring accessibility over a 'reasonable' period of time.

In the case of Greyhound, accessibility and equal opportunities were not only ensured through the gradual change of existing buses, but through the possibility of pre-booking services to ensure accessible transport during the long transition period. Surely, we in Malta are capable of drawing a lesson from this case and using it as a non-contentious model for ensuring change at an acceptable momentum.

Let us not embrace the past, like a drowning man does a whisp of straw: desperately clutching the familiar, rather than taking a risk and attempting to strike out into new, and perhaps, potentially dangerous waters. It is profitable for us to understand and even market the Past, but we cannot afford to live in the Past.

Developing third-age tourism

Visitors to our islands, often find the present fleet of buses and other vehicles quaint, picturesque and charming but, as I have had occasion to say to those same visitors: "If you like them so much, take them away with you and let us keep your fleet of buses!". So far there have been no takers. For the truth is, that visitors may enjoy the indignity of clambering as best they can into antiquated, bone-shakers, but they will always seek comfort, convenience and personal safety for regular travel.

So let us be serious about this. If we really intend to diversify and upgrade our tourism market we cannot afford to put aside third age tourism. Elderly tourists, with money to spend, are increasingly seeking destinations where the weather and the prices are fair, the people considerate and polite and the physical environment (including public transport systems) user friendly to bodies which have to contend with age-induced impairments. In this respect, third-age tourism is a potential niche market consisting of elderly persons from northern climates who increasingly opt to winter in our more temperate climate. Like us, they deserve a better deal. Tourism, we are constantly reminded, is an area of our national economy that we ignore at our peril.

The European Union

If we aspire to 'sitting at the table' with other countries from the European Union then we must (metaphorically) adopt their table manners. Council Resolution 492Y0124(01) taken on 16th December, 1991, concerning a Community action programme on the accessibility of transport to persons with reduced mobility is not binding. However, it does encourage member states to:

· formulate minimum requirements to improve the mobility and safe transport to work of workers with reduced mobility, and
· develop a Community action programme including proposals for concrete measures designed to improve accessibility to all modes of public transport and to access points thereto.

By encouraging member states to take these measures such a resolution is laying the groundwork for future legislation will most certainly be binding on EU member states.

Many European countries already boast of public transport systems which are partially accessible while manageable time-frames ensure that full accessibility is no longer a pipe-dream. How much longer can we afford to lag behind: Britain, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Ireland, and even Greece?

Creating culture shocks

As long ago as 1988 the then National Commission for the Handicapped identified accessible public transportation as a priority area for bringing about a lasting improvement in the quality of life of disabled people in Malta and Gozo.

During all these years we have always been aware of the radical nature of our demands. We knew that their effect, would be nothing short of seismic, a huge culture-shock for many individuals with a conservative and tradition-bound mentality. But let me stress that during all this time, we have been aware of the very real limitations which various ministers, decision-makers and bus owners responsible for transport and the Public Transport Authority have had to contend with.

However, we also understand that it is the responsibility of public officials (myself included) to seek solutions --- sometimes to problems which seemingly defy a solution. One such problem is that of costs.

It would be a sad day indeed, if our quality of life was to be constrained by purely financial considerations. If, as a nation, we are willing to value areas of our national identity, such as the arts, to an extent where we are ready to put our money (and substantially at that) where our mouth is, then I ask, why are we so ready to compromise on the everyday quality of life for all citizens in our tiny community?

But besides the moral argument, there is also the common-sense, business perspective. Can we actually afford not to invest in super low floor technology? An increasing proportion of our population is ageing, and will soon be unable to continue driving their own vehicles, which is the only accessible means of transport open to them at present. If we continue to insist on non-accessible public transport vehicles we are effectively condemning our population of elderly people to imprisonment in their own, or community, homes. As a short term objective, new, more expensive technology may seem prohibitively expensive, but in the long term, we are convinced that increasing use of public transport will more than justify the initial costs.

Conclusions

Before I go, I would like to make a few, brief recommendations.

The Commission believes it essential for the decisions to based upon sound research findings. To this end, it is important to undertake a survey to gauge the general public's perception on (a) whether or not Government should spend more to ensure that all new buses are of the super low floor technology kind and (b) that other areas of public transport are rendered more accessible.

The Commission notes with satisfaction that the Public Transport Authority is indeed undertaking such a survey and is even more appreciative of the fact that the concerns of people with different needs are being included in the issues being researched.

As major stakeholders, and we are all major stakeholders where public transport is concerned, need to stop wasting time defending our patch of turf and engage in meaningful discourse. This is especially true where financial considerations are paramount. It is imperative that we begin thinking laterally, and have the courage to develop and adopt innovative ways of financing the change to a more equitable public transport system.

Finally, let us begin talking of time-frames. Let us take stock of the present situation and create realistic and acceptable milestones which will govern the momentum for change. But, more than anything, let us fix our vision on the stars, let us embrace change and let us believe that change is possible.

That is the only way that we can give real meaning to this conference. The only way we can ensure that having sat at the table, and eaten some of what's on the plate we can all, hopefully, leave the meal having received our just desserts.

_________________________________________________

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Buses Magazine, March 2000. www.ianallanpub.co.uk/buses.

Department of Information (2000): Equal Opportunities (Persons with Disability) Act, Department of Information, Malta.

Malcolm X (1964): "The Ballot or the Bullet,", a speech. 3rd April, 1964, Cleveland, Ohio. Published in Malcolm X Speaks, ch. 3, 1965.

Sandhu, J., et al. (1995): NEWT, Tyne and Wear Transport Initiative for Disabled People. A report prepared by the Special Needs Research Unit, University of Northumbria, Newcastle upon Tyne. United Kingdom.

Department of Information (1990): Structure Plan for the Maltese Islands, (First Draft) November 1990. Ref: 69, 14.17, Policy PTR2.

Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation and The Disability Alliance (1976): Fundamental Principles of Disability. London. Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation.

_________________________________________________